Business of the House

Baroness Keeley Excerpts

Thursday 22nd October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

That is an issue I take very seriously. I can give my hon. Friend an assurance that Ministers with responsibility will want to keep the House informed. Indeed, the Prime Minister has addressed the issue on more than one occasion. We will do everything we possibly can to ease the problems caused by a deeply distressing change in world steel markets and to protect the livelihoods of workers in this country, but at the same time we will continue to pursue a policy that has succeeded in bringing down unemployment right across the country. It is much better to deal with these challenges in the context of an improving labour market, rather than a worsening one.

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

A large group of women born in the 1950s have been badly hit by the acceleration of the state pension age as a result of the Pensions Acts of 1995 and 2011, and many of them, including my constituents, were not informed of the changes, which clearly have a key impact on their future pensions incomes. My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) requested a debate on the issue last week but received a fairly dismissive reply. This issue is very important to hundreds of thousands of women, so I ask the Leader of the House to reconsider.

[Chris Grayling]

I understood the points that were made last week, but I would simply say that Governments of both sides have taken the view in recent years that we have to increase the state pension age. It was done under the previous Labour Government and it has been done most recently under the coalition Government. We are seeing life expectancies rise massively in this country, and that is good. People are living far longer than they did before, but the inevitable consequence is an increasing state pension age, and that is what has happened. If the hon. Lady wants a debate, she can certainly refer the matter to the Backbench Business Committee. I understand that it is difficult for the women concerned, but in a world where people live much longer than they did before, it is impossible to make a transition without some kind of impact on those involved.

Business of the House

Baroness Keeley Excerpts

Thursday 9th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

Ensuring that we have good broadband and good mobile connections around the whole country, particularly in rural areas, is essential. This Government have been working hard to try and improve things, as did the coalition Government. I will make sure that Ministers are aware of my hon. Friend’s concerns. He is right that it is essential to ensure that we have a modern, high-tech rural economy that can best equip people in those areas for their jobs and businesses.

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

There was an absence from the Budget statement yesterday of any commitment to fund essential transport projects such as the electrification of the trans-Pennine link, although we did hear about Crossrail, as ever. Rail campaigning groups in my constituency are very disappointed because these cuts will mean no extra rolling stock for our local rail lines, not just the Manchester-Leeds connection. May we have a debate on what the Manchester Evening News is now rightly calling the northern power cut?

[Chris Grayling]

I am a bit surprised that the hon. Lady appears so sceptical about Crossrail, which I thought her party had supported throughout the years. We are committed as a Government to one of the biggest programmes of rail modernisation that this country has seen for a long time. She talks about electrification. We will electrify the trans-Pennine route. She needs to look back at her party’s record in government when, over 13 years, it electrified, if I remember correctly, 10 miles of railway line. We are setting in place a proper modernisation programme for our railways. Labour failed to do so even when it had the money.

Summer Adjournment

Baroness Keeley Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow my colleague from the Health Committee who spoke on a theme we hear quite a bit about in our meetings—less so the astrology, but we hear quite a bit about the other aspects.

I want to talk about carers, who are a key part of our society. The challenges of caring should be a vital part of the debate on social care. Now that we talk so much more about the integration of health and social care, we must remember that unpaid family carers provide most of that care. It is not paid for—it is given. The Care Act 2014 gave local authorities responsibility for assessing a carer’s own needs for support, and for deciding whether those needs are “eligible” for support. I believe that that legislation fails carers in two ways. We know that £3.7 billion has been cut from adult social care budgets since 2009-10. Giving carers new rights to assessment and support is a hollow improvement because the support available to them is dwindling because of higher eligibility levels and increased charges.

Macmillan Cancer Support reports that only one in three carers of people with cancer had heard of a carer’s assessment, and only one in 20 carers have actually had one. A survey in 2013 found that more than 70% of carers come into contact with health professionals, including GPs, doctors and nursing staff, during their caring journey. We have given the duty to assess carers to a body that a lot of carers do not see. It has always been clear to me that health professionals should have a key role in identification, but currently they identify only one in 10 carers, and GPs identify fewer than that.

The need for NHS bodies to identify carers and ensure that they are referred to sources of advice and support was raised at all stages of the debate on the Care Bill in the Commons, but was not accepted by the care Minister. Labour tabled new clauses to ensure that NHS bodies were required to identify carers and ensure that carers received advice and support, but they were voted down. In my constituency I see how that leaves carers with inadequate support. Last week I raised the example of a 62-year-old man from Eccles, who is caring for his wife who has Alzheimer’s. When Mr Bielawski sought an urgent GP appointment for his wife, he was told that it would take five weeks for her to see her GP and two weeks to see any GP, or he could take her to Salford Royal hospital’s A and E department. That is clearly not acceptable, but it is what happens when there is no duty on GPs or their staff to identify carers. If they did that, carers and the people for whom they are caring could be given the support and the priority that they deserve. In my view, a carer for somebody with Alzheimer’s disease should receive more priority than Mr Bielawski was given.

I believe it is time for the national Government to make a covenant with carers to show how society values their caring, and how we intend to support them to continue to care in future. A covenant could address flaws in the Care Act 2014, widen the definition of carer and address additional burdens that have been put on carers by this Government’s welfare reforms.

I suggest that, initially, under the covenant, NHS bodies should have a duty to identify carers, which I have just discussed; GPs and hospital staff should signpost carers to that help and support; NHS bodies should ensure that carers receive relevant medical services, because many carers need health checks that they never get; the definition of carer should be widened to include young carers and parent carers; and schools and colleges should recognise the needs and rights of young carers, and have procedures in place to identify them. More generally, the Government should have a role in ensuring that children and young people are protected from inappropriate caring.

We should not—absolutely not—charge carers if they need an extra room for their caring responsibilities. The bedroom tax currently affects 60,000 carers, and I am glad that Labour has pledged to abolish it. I hope that we have an early vote on that. Given the reported policy U-turns in other parties, I hope they will join Labour Members in that pledge to abolish the bedroom tax. Given that current welfare reforms have had an impact on carers, the Government should ensure that future legislation is more carer-proofed, so that changes do not negatively affect carers’ ability to care.

My last point on the care part of my speech is on Labour’s whole person care proposals, which would bring together three fragmented services—NHS, mental health and social care—into a single service co-ordinating all a person’s needs. I trust that supporting carers will be central to Labour’s proposals, because, as I have said, carers provide so much of the care needed.

The bedroom tax has hit my constituency hard. Around 1,400 households are still affected. A small number have been able to move and downsize, but for the rest of those affected, the true impact of the bedroom tax is becoming clearer. Some households affected by the bedroom tax were helped by the local authority’s discretionary housing payment scheme, which was well managed and targeted appropriately by Salford city council. Despite that help, only 49% of those households affected have been able to pay the tax, and 51% of have slipped into arrears, which have risen by £90,000 in recent months. As I said, Labour has pledged to abolish the bedroom tax. That will be a relief to my constituents, but meanwhile, it is worth saying that the policy is taking my constituents into debt and into misery.

Talking of Department for Work and Pensions chaos, I recently took up the case of a constituent, Mr Koppens, who had undergone major surgery for tongue and neck cancer—a very difficult cancer. My constituent told me that, in an operation lasting more than 13 hours, he suffered heart attacks, and that he continues to have unstable angina. Given his medical history, he is not allowed to drive. Despite that, a DWP decision maker put Mr Koppens into the work-related activity group, so that he was required by the local jobcentre to attend an interview. He was referred to the Work programme.

Mr Koppens was astonished at that outcome. He felt that the jobcentre was putting pressure on him, and making him feel like a cheat and that his cardiologist and doctors were liars. In the end, he attended an interview with the Work programme provider, but during the interview, he started to suffer chest pain. He asked for a first-aider but there was no first-aider, so he had to ask for an ambulance to be called. I was amazed to discover that, despite all that, as Mr Koppens was leaving to go to the hospital, the centre’s manager remonstrated that Mr Koppens’s wife, who had driven him to the interview, had failed to sign in properly when they arrived.

Furthermore, I have had to raise with Ministers eight cases of constituents who have claimed personal independence payment from May 2013, June 2013, August 2013 and September 2013. They have encountered lost forms, waits of six months or more for an Atos assessment, and a lack of updates or information when they contact the DWP. The process appears to be in complete chaos. I hope the newly appointed Ministers will be able to make some impact on the chaos at the DWP because my constituents are suffering from it. To be frank, I am not holding my breath.

Another local issue is air pollution. Last Thursday, I asked the following question to the new Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:

“The M60, the M62 and the M602 run through my constituency…We have extremely high levels of air pollution from road traffic. Indeed, the Highways Agency has had to shelve its plans to widen the M60 near my constituency because that would have brought too much road traffic”

on to the motorway

“and made our unacceptable air pollution worse. Now that the European Court of Justice has ruled that the Government are failing to meet their air pollution targets…what plans”

do

“Ministers have to tackle air pollution in areas such as mine, to prevent my constituents from suffering respiratory disease and early death?”—[Official Report, 17 July 2014; Vol. 584, c. 1001.]

Not surprisingly, the Secretary of State—she had been in her new role for only 48 hours—found that she could not answer that question, so I hope the Deputy Leader of the House has an answer today because, in summertime, the pollution tends to make my constituents very ill.

The hon. Member for Southend West (Mr Amess) spoke of the need for a national cemetery, but in the past 24 hours, I have been dealing with the problem of dozens of gravestones dumped on land near the Manchester ship canal. I thank Chief Superintendent Mary Doyle of Greater Manchester police, and David Seager of Salford city council, for dealing with that sensitive matter and for trying to find a solution that respects the families who own the gravestones, which should never have been dumped. I wish you, Mr Deputy Speaker, a good recess, and I thank all who support our work, particularly the Hansard writers and Noeleen and her team in the Tea Room.

Business of the House

Baroness Keeley Excerpts

Thursday 26th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I understand my hon. Friend’s point. As she knows, mitochondrial donation techniques can give women who carry severe mitochondrial disease the opportunity to have children without passing on devastating genetic disorders. We consulted on the draft regulations that would be required to allow such treatment between February and May. We are considering the responses and will announce our plans as soon as possible. My hon. Friend will understand that such regulations would be subject to debates in both Houses of Parliament and require approval.

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

My constituent, David McIntyre, served his country for more than 11 years as a soldier in Bosnia, Northern Ireland and Afghanistan. As a result of events in his service, he has post-traumatic stress, depression and been assessed as being at risk of suicide. Despite his mental state, he faces extradition to the United States next week to answer charges, which he denies, relating to a commercial matter. Earlier this week, I wrote to the Home Secretary requesting an urgent meeting to discuss this matter, but to date I have received no reply. Will the Leader of the House ask the Home Secretary to respond to my request for a meeting?

[Mr Lansley]

I will, of course, be helpful to the hon. Lady and contact the Home Secretary. I am grateful that she has written to the Home Office, so that it has details of this case, and I will endeavour to ensure that she has an opportunity to meet the Home Secretary or the relevant Minister.

Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill

Baroness Keeley Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Allen]

A number of expert witnesses from the lobbying business came to see the Committee, at our request, and I will read a quote from just one. The Whitehouse Consultancy, a public affairs company, said:

“Our clients…want to develop relationships with other officials and policymakers, such as those at Director-General level or below”.

That view was repeated over and over again; I have a list here, but I will not bore you by reading it into the record, Mr Speaker. My hon. Friend makes a succinct point: those people—the doers; the people who are going to write those background papers and feed a yes or no recommendation to a Minister—perhaps even above Ministers, and certainly above permanent secretaries, should be first on the list.

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

I join other hon. Members on both sides of the House who have thanked my hon. Friend and his Committee for the excellent work they have done. In his examination of the type of senior civil servants who are lobbied, did he note the reports of the lobbying on fracking and shale gas of senior officials from the Department of Energy and Climate Change? Apparently, they discussed, over hospitality and via e-mail, lines to take, so that the same solid response came from government—from senior civil servants—and the shale gas companies. That is a perfect example of what he is talking about.

[Mr Allen]

My hon. Friend has been persistent in raising these matters in the House, and I bow to her expertise on them. I am sure that we all have particular things that have interested us as Members over the years where it has been essential that we have such access. I have no problem in listing those things, and I hope that my constituents might be impressed if I were to do so. On the basis of honesty and transparency, all those things should certainly be clear for everyone to see, to make sure that our government is conducted without even the slightest whiff of impropriety.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Brake]

The Government are focusing on Ministers and permanent secretaries because of their key decision-making roles. Ultimately, they make the decisions in Government. We will of course come to the issue of special advisers.

The measures will further improve the transparency of decision makers. It is equally important that the actions of those who seek to influence decision makers are also transparent. We have been clear that lobbying plays a vital role in policy making, ensuring that Ministers hear a full range of views from those who will be affected by Government decisions, particularly in the more participative and open policy-making environment that we are promoting. It is crucial that the fluency of this dialogue is protected.

[Barbara Keeley]

Did the Minister not hear the point I made to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) about recent reports based on freedom of information requests of senior civil servants in the Department of Energy and Climate Change meeting lobbyists from the shale gas industry to give them lines to take? I am talking about hospitality, meetings and e-mails. That is not balanced; that is not hearing both sides of the argument. If that is the relationship between DECC civil servants and the shale gas companies, does the Minister not understand that there is no balance in that whatever?

[Tom Brake]

I am afraid that I am not aware of the details to which the hon. Lady has referred. Again, I restate the fact that this is about ensuring there is transparency around the people who make the decisions in Government, and that is perfectly appropriate.

By publishing details of Ministers’ and permanent secretaries’ meetings with external organisations and individuals, we have enhanced the transparency of that dialogue, without diminishing its vibrancy. There is one element of the dialogue, however, that remains potentially hidden and that is when organisations or individuals make communications to Ministers and permanent secretaries via consultant lobbyists. That is because it is not always clear which third-party interests are being represented by such lobbyists. The provisions for a statutory register of consultant lobbyists provided for by part 1 of the Bill address that specific problem. They will identify the interests represented by consultant lobbyists by requiring them to disclose details of their clients on a publicly available register.

There has been some criticism of the Government’s proposals for a register, but there has been no consensus on what should replace it. I recognise that some in this place have suggested that the scope of the register should be broader to capture all those who communicate with Government and require them to disclose extensive information regarding their activities and finances. There has, however, been no clear articulation of the problem that such proposals would address.

Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill

Baroness Keeley Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Ms Eagle]

I agree. The House of Lords must get its house in order and the Bill touches on none of the lobbying scandals that seemingly forced the Prime Minister’s hand before he suddenly decided to come up with the Bill at the end of June.

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

The Leader of the House would not give way when he was speaking about part 2. There are some key issues for coalitions of charities. The shadow Leader of the House mentioned health issues such as smoking. There are big differences between the parties on some of these issues and there could be a chilling effect on a coalition of, say, health and social care organisations that was campaigning for the particular stance that one particular party might be advocating. Charities are worried today. We have talked to them this morning. The Leader of the House may shake his head, but they are worried. He has got it wrong.

[Ms Eagle]

My hon. Friend is right. Lawyers who have looked at the changes that the Government are proposing to make in part 2 agree with the worries of the charitable sector. A mere assertion from those on the Government Benches that the measure does not mean what everybody else thinks it means will not be enough to reassure people on these matters.

Business of the House

Baroness Keeley Excerpts

Thursday 27th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

The Liaison Committee has timetabled a debate on public expenditure and health care services on Tuesday. Clearly the issues that my hon. Friend raises are relevant to that debate and he may wish to utilise that opportunity. I felt strongly that the Chancellor’s announcement yesterday was extremely important and welcome, and it followed the announcement made in the spending review of 2010. The NHS has used its resources, together with local authorities, in developing health and social care interactions very effectively, which has demonstrated how these additional resources might make a much greater difference in terms of promoting independence and preventive health care.

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

On shale gas, we learned from BBC news this morning that the Government were likely to announce a streamlined planning process to award drilling permits for shale gas, but we did not hear any more detail. We got one mumbled sentence in the statement from the Chief Secretary. For constituencies such as mine, this is a key issue because we now have the threat of fracking for shale gas close to two housing estates. May we have a debate in Government time on Government plans for shale gas? We need to explore the reality of what the exploration and exploitation of shale gas will mean for communities before we are hurtled into a streamlined process, which apparently will be announced on 18 July, the day the House rises.

[Mr Lansley]

I will not reiterate the points I have made, beyond saying that DECC Ministers will be here on 11 July to answer questions. I know that they will want to keep the House fully updated. I hope that we might have an opportunity for a debate between now and the summer recess, if not in Government time, then in Back-Bench time or elsewhere.

While I am at the dispatch Box, Mr Speaker, I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Reading East (Mr Wilson) that there was a debate on public expenditure and health care services next Tuesday. I was wrong; it is Wednesday.

Business of the House

Baroness Keeley Excerpts

Thursday 25th April 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

Yes, my hon. Friend makes a point which has been raised at business questions before. It is important to try to ensure clarity about how mis-selling claims are to be handled in order to give confidence and reassurance to small firms in particular. I will ensure that in the time available we are in contact with the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills about getting an answer to my hon. Friend on that point.

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

The measles outbreak is not just in Wales; we have had a steep increase in reported cases in Salford, mainly among older children—10 to 14-year-olds—who were not vaccinated in the 1990s, and I understand that about 10% of them have been hospitalised. Will the Leader of the House support my message to parents who did not have their children vaccinated when they were younger that it is absolutely vital that they take them now to be fully protected by the MMR vaccine? May we also have a statement from the Health Secretary—it would have to be today, of course—on what plans he has to boost the vaccination programme?

Business of the House

Baroness Keeley Excerpts

Thursday 14th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. As the House will know, I almost invariably call everyone at business questions, and I would like to do so again today, but it is a day of Backbench Business Committee debates, which are well subscribed, so we are under heavy time pressure. I therefore appeal to colleagues to ask single short questions, and to Leader of the House to give pithy replies.

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

Unpaid carers provide vital care to frail, ill and disabled people, but thousands of them are being hit by the benefits cap and the Welfare Benefits Up-rating Bill. Many will also be hit by the bedroom tax and the loss of council tax benefit, and we now find from the updated impact assessment for personal independence payments that 10,000 carers will lose their carers allowance and 5,000 fewer will qualify. May we have a debate on why this Government are hitting unpaid carers with their reforms, rather than exempting them?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Lady has to recognise, for example, that we specifically excluded carers from the constraint on the uprating of welfare benefit—recognising their role. The draft Care and Support Bill puts into statute for the first time specific support for carers, not least in respect of supporting their health.

Business of the House

Baroness Keeley Excerpts

Thursday 22nd November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I was not aware of those circumstances, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making me and the House aware of them. I will of course raise the matter with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and invite him not only to respond to my hon. Friend but to consider what form of statement it might be appropriate to make.

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

I hope that the Leader of the House will join me in congratulating Paula Dunn on her appointment as the Paralympics head coach of UK Athletics. She is the first woman ever to have held that role. In relation to supporting what she and other coaches might do, we had questions earlier today on the legacy of the Olympics for women in sport and the legacy of the Paralympics for disabled people, but no clear answers from Ministers, so may we have a debate in Government time on exactly what is happening and going to happen as regards the action needed to address those important legacy issues?

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising that issue. I think that Members of the House will share with her a sense of the real potential that the Olympics and the Paralympics gave for a legacy that is vital not only in respect of development in sport but of social change and understanding of the position of disabled people in society. It is almost difficult to talk about people being disabled when the thing that came most to the fore when watching the Paralympics was that we all have very different abilities. The Paralympics seemed largely to consist of people whose abilities were far in excess of mine and those of us who think of ourselves as not disabled. In truth, we all have very different abilities, and that very much came to the forefront; I thought it was very persuasive. The House is considering Olympic legacy issues through the Culture, Media and Sport Committee. I will talk to my colleagues about how we might find an opportunity to discuss and debate those issues, but it might also be considered by the Backbench Business Committee.